1. Defendant B shall pay 80,000,000 won to the Plaintiff and 15% per annum from February 10, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims in attached Form;

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Judgment made by deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C

A. On August 16, 2016, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 50,000,000 to the account held in Defendant C’s name due to the Defendant’s fraudulent act, and there is no legal relationship that constitutes the cause of account transfer from the beginning. Although there is no legal relationship that constitutes the cause of account transfer, Defendant C, the addressee who acquired the deposit claim amounting to KRW 50,000 by account transfer, is liable to pay the Plaintiff, the remitter, the remitter, the amount of KRW 50,000,000, and damages for delay from the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case.

B. Where an addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of the account transfer by account transfer even though there is no legal relationship between the remitter and the addressee, the remitter shall be entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007). However, in a case where the profit of the benefiting party does not have a legal ground, the unjust enrichment system imposes the duty of return on the benefiting party based on the principle of fairness and justice, and thus, the benefiting party cannot be held liable to return if there is no substantial benefit on the part of the benefiting party.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37325, 37332 Decided September 8, 201). In light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, as to whether Defendant C acquired substantial benefits in the instant case, the health unit, Defendant B and Defendant C did not have any common sense, and telephone conversations did not know at all once, and Defendant B around August 2016.